Talk:Qualitative psychological research

Failure to achieve NPOV
I'm not happy with this article -- I think I failed to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#What_is_NPOV? NPOV], and I'm sure the definition of qualitative research could be presented more informatively by someone more versed in the field than I. However, I thought it would be good to have an article for the links in other articles, notably Humanistic psychology, to go to. I've been hoping that the author of that article or someone else from the so-called humanistic school would improve this article, but I've learned not to hold my breath. Trontonian 13:58, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Has anyone ever written anything NPOV anywhere about qualitative research? This article has now become fat and sluggish and needs to be trimmed down. Looks as if no one else's going to di it, either. Not a lot of qualitative researchers on Wikipedia, I guess, eh? Trontonian 16:12, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Qualitative research is much improved. Thanks. Trontonian 20:28, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Qualitative analysis (Chemistry)
This section needs either improving, or two new pages.

Qualitative inorganic and organic analysis is totally different (chalk and cheese!).

Adding Silver Nitrate to a solution and seeing a white precipitate would rule out Sodium Nitrate, but it doesn't prove the prescence of Sodium Chloride.

I shall try to write something soon. Jeff Knaggs 22:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and the fact that this talk page has been redirected to Qualitative psychological research definitely shows the need for some new pages. Jeff Knaggs 22:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page can't be moved at the moment, so I've manually copied its contents to Talk:Qualitative research. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page contains a lot of material not found at Qualitative research, so I don't see why it was converted to a redirect to that page. Thanks to Mel for restoring the original page at Qualitative research, though. The replacement was definitely heterodox, and while the ideas in it could legitimately have been added to the article, they don't represent the conventional view of qualitative research. John FitzGerald 16:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Page focus
It seems this page has a lot more to do with a debate between qualitative and quantitative research than it does qualitative psychological research. In fact, after reading the article I feel very well informed on the debate between quantitative and qualitative research, but if there was good information about the actual qualitative psych research, it got diluted. I think this could be split off into another article, or at least better organized to keep what seems like criticism out of the main body. --M.C. ArZeCh 20:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There's never been any more information about the specific methods than there is now, as far as I can recall. If you want to add some, feel free. I support the re-organization option, since there is a powerful camp that says qualitative research is superior to quantitative, and the dispute is therefore integral to the status of qualitative research &#8211; on the other hand I can see the arguments for the other alternative, and would not be opposed to splitting the article as long as it's done with more consultation than the anonymous editor who converted the article to a redirect. John FitzGerald 19:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Newman
Why is there an external link to Isadore Newman's page at U. of Akron? It tells us nothing about his work on integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. An article about Dr. Newman which does tell us about it would seem more appropriate. John FitzGerald 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The relationship to qualitative psychological research is not clear enough to include this as an external link. I'll delete it.

Nesbit 16:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The specific link is the problem, of course, rather than Dr. Newman. I'll see if I can find a more informative one which would be a useful external link. John FitzGerald 21:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
This stuff, which I took out of the article, is vandalism, pure and simple:


 * After this paragraph, everything expressed consists of the opinions, the perspective, of someone trained in quantitative research methods and somewhat dismissive of the value of qualitative research. In fact, both are equally valuable and this is an odd place for such a slanted view to appear. Qualitative research is necessary because the myth that science rests upon is fragmenting. Quantitative research is weakened by the incorrect assumption that everything real can be measured and repeated at will. However, we have found that our measuring devices are often too primitive to do that. A little example? Physicists now believe that the majority of the stuff in the universe is made up of something we can't actually find. The author of the first part of this entry and many others are understandably attempting to shore up their shifting foundation. Quantitative research will always have its place, but qualitative research has a different base of asssumptions. The goal is the same, knowledge. The method is all that is different. This trash masquerading as a definition of the goal of qualitative research serves as a potent reminder that many of our philosophical questions are no more than a form of intellectual neurosis.


 * (A NEGATIVE ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH WHICH SHOULD BE SOMEWHERE ELSE.)

It's also personal abuse, all the more virulent for its author not having the guts to identify him or herself, and unencyclopedic. If the article seems slanted to you, add text to redress the slant. Preferably text that's a little more precise and relevant than "Physicists believe that the majority of the stuff in the universe is made up of something we can't actually find."

If you think this article consists largely of opinion, show where it's mistaken about the facts. If you don't like the definition, supply an alternative one. The rubbish above is just POV ranting.

Incidentally, I'm the author of most of the stuff the anonymous vandal finds to be trash, I was trained in both qualitative and quantitive methods, and like most researchers I think qualitative techniques are indispensible. And are people trained in quantitative methods not allowed to write about qualitative research? John FitzGerald 20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

fundamentally flawed
Sorry, but I don't think you're qualified to be talking about qualitative research. The entry 'qualitative research' on widipedia does a much better job (if its somewhat simplistic) and is far more accurate - from the perspective of qualitative research. The problem with your article is that you are essentially arguing against qualitative research whereas you should be arguing for it - or at least balancing the argument. It would be more useful to refer to the other description of qualitative research, and then talk about some of the research in psychology that's used qualitative research and what this has added to the field of psychology. I agree in principle with your 'vandal' that you've written everything with an eye on the philosophy of quantitative research as opposed to qualitative. They come from very different philosophical backgrounds and until you understand the philosophical background of qualitative research, there is not much point in talking about it.

I can't possible 'fix' your article, or even argue against it because it is entirely flawed from beginning to end - not to mention years out of date. Try reading J. Potter and M. Wetherell - they seem to have a pretty good grasp of it from a psychologist's viewpoint.

[Above comment by User:Bonjabow]


 * If you can't fix the article, perhaps you could just mention even one specific example of a biased statement in the article. Then we could work on fixing that. See how easy it is to fix things? John FitzGerald 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also clearly not in accord with Wikipedia policy to write an article which consists of POV ("you should be arguing for it"). As far as I can see, it's the balance in the argument which annoys some fans of qualitative research, all of whom seem to lack the energy to do anything about what they see as bias except abuse me and the other people who have contributed to this article. John FitzGerald 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

P. S. And see next.


 * I told you you could do it. I think the article is greatly improved thanks to your recent edits. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness, brother. I think I understand why you removed the section about arguments against quantitative research, but if you could briefly explain that would be helpful. I don't know if the section is essential (which is why I haven't restored it), but to my mind it was informative. Perhaps some of the issues, at least, could be raised in other sections. John FitzGerald 13:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did restore some critical observations which I think are still pertinent, and added some fact tags. I don't think an article about either qualitative or quantitative methods should blandly assert that the methods are effective without providing evidence. Nor do I think we should overlook obvious facts such as that quantitative researchers do fieldwork as well. On the whole, though, the article is now much more to the point. I've been hoping that some proponent of qualitative research would stop whining and slap the article into shape, so thanks for doing the job. John FitzGerald 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Call for criticism
I am interested in substantive criticism of this article (rather than "The article is entirely wrong and therefore I can't correct it," as under Fundamentally flawed above) which would remove bias and error. If you have substantive criticisms please raise them here. Or change the article &#8211; this is an open-text encyclopedia, after all. John FitzGerald 15:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR
After debating NOR at a couple of other pages, I realized that much of my contribution to this article is now considered OR, so I took it out. I apologize if I have removed anyone else's contributions by mistake. If they were OR according to the policy they should be out, I suppose, but I would have preferred just to tag them instead. I left in a couple of my assertions with fact tags, and will find citations for them.

I do think WP:NOR is too broad a policy, but I don't think it hurts erring, possibly, on the side of caution with this article. My only regret is the change will satisfy all the people who saw fit to abuse me without seeing fit to explain why they were right to abuse me. I will post the article as it was before I edited it at User:John Fitzgerald/QPR. John FitzGerald

Definition
This article still needs a better definition of qualitative research. You can't define something by a characteristic it does not have. According to the definition here, nosy neighbours are qualitative psychological researchers. John FitzGerald (talk)

Data collection section
This section is huge with nonsense content, need to organized again for more effective way to express. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.225.98.51 (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This text describes a specific example of qualitative psychological research (perhaps copy and pasted from a research article?) and not a general description of its methodologies.--95.148.94.7 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Qualitative psychological research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141124231416/http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk:80/resined/interviews/focusgroups.htm to http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/interviews/focusgroups.htm
 * Added tag to http://hccedl.cc.gatech.edu/documents/120
 * Added tag to http://web.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/unspecified/student_assess_toolkit/focusGroups.html)
 * Added tag to http://csusap.csu.edu.au/~imanock/505%20and%20506%20Study%20Guides%20&%20readings/EMG505/topic3/Reading3.0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Focus Groups
This article has a very lengthy category on focus groups - indeed it is longer than the rest of the article. There is already a substantial article on focus groups. I do not think that this category adds any additional information. I would propose deleting this section of the page. - bogle (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Partially agreed. Looking at the articles, some of the material here might be usefully moved to the focus group article. Also, I think this article should retain a focus group section, albeit much shorter. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with both you, User:Bogle and User:Bondegezou. The article needs to retain a section on focus groups but a section that is much smaller than the current version of the section. I am not sure that much of the discussion, or even any of the discussion, should be moved to the focus-group article because the focus group article already covers the same ground but with a greater emphasis on brevity. The current section is too much of a "how to" manual. The details of "how to" don't belong in an encyclopedia article. Like recipes, which belong in a cookbook. The "how to" of focus grouping belongs in a technical book on conducting a focus group. Such a book is part of the references. Iss246 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)